In fact, they are kings of Vatican City, an elective monarchy. It supposes no attitude of reverence or holiness towards the popes on my part for me to refer to them by the names they choose to reign under. It’s a tradition for over a thousand years for a pope to take a regnal name, and it’s no skin off my nose to refer to them that way.
Your attitude obviously varies, and as long as you realize that it inhibits rather than enhances understanding, well, whatever.
Actually, it’s the Catholic Church, aka the Holy See, not the Vatican, that’s a permanent observer state, sends ambassadors, and enters into treaties. This is distinct from the Vatican, which is a state.
That has exactly nothing to do with their role as enablers of child rape, except insofar as it gives them an opportunity to hide Law that would not be available if not for that small plot of land in Italy.
I’d *rather *refer to them by their inmate numbers, but if you insist on using their lodge nicknames, you certainly may. It’s a matter of your own choice, but don’t claim it should be anybody else’s, and I hope you understand why.
I would suggest that the opposite is true - that giving them deference by virtue of a token governmental leadership is inhibiting your own understanding of their roles leading their organized crime family.
Well, that and the unfortunate fact that he didn’t commit any crime.
I probably have as much dislike of the Catholic church, and religion in general, as you, but you’re a fucking ignorant embarrassment on this subject. You don’t get to accuse people of crimes simply because you dislike what they’ve done.
You should probably also look up what “crime family” actually means at some point. And “law”.
That is not at all established. :dubious:
Besides, is that all you think they need to stand for, especially given their role as self-appointed arbiters and guides of morality? If there’s no problem, then why is Law where he is?
Well, it’s established to the point that he’s not been charged with a crime, and no-one can actually find a law he’s broken. Which, of course, doesn’t mean there’s “no problem” at all. Quite probably his behaviour should be illegal, but it isn’t.
So, what should the Church do? Keep him where they can closely watch him, or send him back to America to continue doing what he was doing?
There are many things that the Church (and all religions) can be criticised for, but their current response to child abuse isn’t one of them. Yes, it’s 50 years or more too late, and yes that’s disgusting, but they literally can’t do anything about that.
Also easier to type.
Scroll up.
How about firing his ass and letting him face his own consequences, like any company without claims to be the Vicars of Christ but with a recognition or legal obligations as well as moral ones would do? Why is that not an option?
When they send Law back, without any support behind him, then you can start to tell us about that.
“All religions”, you claim? What are some of the others you can point to that compare?
What *are *they doing for the victims, then? We already know what the apologists are doing for the children - getting bothered by calling their rapists and their enablers by their real names, not by what what was done to them. :rolleyes:
I read the thread, and the other thread about this. In neither has anyone found a crime that fits. As it happens, the Church changed its own rules so that, in future, it will be a crime, but that shouldn’t be retrospective.
It’s not a company, for starters. And what exactly do you mean by “firing” him? He resigned…
They all lie to control people - that’s their reason for existing.
Someone’s “real name” is that which they choose to be called by. In the case of a Pope, that is their regnal name. It’s already been shown repeatedly what they’re doing - paying for counselling and other help for victims (which is referred to as hush money by those who want to spin it), changing their laws to prevent recurrence of this situation, and investigating allegations and, where appropriate, punishing the criminals.
You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of how the Church works. It’s not a company or a crime family (:smack:), and the central organisation doesn’t have unlimited power over Bishops and priests - indeed, it has far less than most governments or companies would.
But hey, keep going on about how wanting to punish someone who’s not broken any rules makes you a better person. Most people can see through that, without ignoring the harm that Law and the Church have done. But the solution is to fix what’s broken, not break more in vengeance.
How dare you call me an apologist for rapists and enablers? Back off, shithead.
A refusal to recognize the authority a “regnal” name implies, I gather.
Religion columnist James Carroll discusses how the organization’s retention of a vestigial nation-state warps it.
Just going with the evidence. What you have chosen to tell us you’re upset about is not child rape, but calling people by their real names and pointing out their own roles in the crimes. So what else should one conclude? The “inhibited understanding” you complain of might just be your own.
Cite for the Vatican refusing a legitimate extradition request? Otherwise, they’re the same as any other state.
No-one’s defending rapists or enablers, at least beyond the level that the law does in general, for everybody. Which is, that they have to have committed an actual crime, not an imaginary one, and be proven guilty of it, not just assumed. And refusing to call anyone by their chosen name is asinine. Would you care to tell me your “real” name, so I can use it instead of ElvisL1ves?
Horse, water.
He’s still a cardinal, a fucking “Prince of the Church”, under its protection as both an organization and a nation-state.
That’s more than a bit unfair to all of the religions that do work to improve the human condition, convincing rather than demanding belief and subservience, and without raping children.
That’s inseparable from context, and here the context is abhorrent.
Criminals like Wesolowski?
You would do well to point out what those differences are, then.
You’re telling me they can’t fire a child-raping priest? Of course they can. Any organization can.
Granting for the moment that that last part is true: Is *that *your moral standard (I hear **Bricker **yelling in glee)? If so, then yes, I do think not raping children, and not excusing those who, does indeed make me a better person than them. It’s astounding to have the question even asked.
When they’re able to get their standards of conduct up to a normal human standard, they can let us know, okay? Until then …
Cite exactly what evidence you have that I am an apologist for rapists and enablers. Shithead.
I’ve been reading this thread with great interest. I asked, out of curiousity, what message you were trying to send by the way you refer to the popes. You told me. As far as I was concerned, that was the end of it. And now, because I refer to them the same way as 99.99999% of the world, I’m an apologist for rapists and enablers. Shithead.
I lost 95% of my respect for you back in 2008. Now that last remaining vestige is gone. You may be fighting the good fight, but you are doing in such a way as to disgust even those on your own side. That’s typical of you. Shithead.
Nope, you’ve still not done it.
That would be none of them. Plenty of individuals do those things, even when their religion would argue against it.
Yes, criminals like that one who we know is a criminal precisely because of the church acting.
You are intentionally conflating different issues again. They can, have, and still do fire them. However, they can’t fire one - such as Law - who hasn’t broken any rules.
Yes, my moral standard is that any state or organisation punishing someone who’s not broken it’s laws or rules is not just wrong, but about as wrong as it’s possible to get. An individual can only do so much harm, even if they rape or kill they destroy a relatively small number of lives. An out of control state destroys millions.
That last, by the way, is why I detest all religions - because they are out of control and destructive. The sad facts are that you are attacking the Catholic church for one of the rare times it is not acting in such a way and, abhorrently, suggesting that governments should act against their own rules to punish those you dislike.
So yes, if you want Law to be punished despite not breaking any laws or rules, then you are worse than a child rapist.
**ElvisL1ves **is in rare form here. Yeesh. It’s just full speed ahead, like one of the internet’s walls has a hole in it shaped like a special-ed kid.
No offense, but: Dude, how do get normative and legal arguments mixed up every time? Unless I’m missing something, the people in this thread (and elsewhere) calling for Law’s prosecution are claiming that he did break Massachusetts law. They can be (and apparently are) wrong about that, but that’s very different from claiming that they want to make an exception out of Law’s constitutional rights.
(Stereotypically, of course, you’re accused of making the opposite mistake: responding to normative arguments as if they were legal ones. I don’t know how prone to that you actually are, but I have seen at least a couple baffling instances, hence my comment above. So, maybe watch out for that?)
I also think extrapolating from this thread to condemn liberals in general for inconsistency is uncharacteristically dumb.
True, but you’re condemning all religions for desiring to control people. Even the ones who don’t depend on indoctrination, threats, and simple demands to believe in order to gain and hold adherents and their donations, and keep their silence and acquiescence when necessary, which in fact is *most *organized religions.
The Dominican police seem to have played a prior role in that one. :rolleyes: The church’s actions have been to whisk him away from the legal system there, placely safely (for now) under protection of their rump state. So what is it exactly that you’re giving them credit for?
This right after you claim he’s resigned? Keep pedaling.
Bricker, why are you bothering to use a sock? :rolleyes: Law /= morality, for most of us, even most atheists.
Yes, it certainly has, over the centuries and continuing today.
You’re letting the example of the outrageous moral failures of just one define your perception of them all.
Good thing I didn’t say that, then. I don’t hold with the law punishing people for things that go against my personal morality, no matter how bad I think they are, if they’re not illegal. So, I no more want you locked up for posting bullshit on this forum than I do want Law locked up for moving priests around instead of reporting them.
I’m really not sure why you object the the Vatican treating it’s people the way any other state or organisation should, in these cases.
It’s impossible to believe that there are people seriously claiming Law broke Massachusetts law when the Massachusetts AG report has already been linked to together with the conclusion that Law did NOT break Massachusetts law, and case law has also been cited showing the key elements of Massachusetts law.
You handwave that way with, “…They can be (and apparently are) wrong about that…”
But how can they “apparently” be wrong about that after such clear demonstration? What possible honest mistake would allow then to continue to believe that Law violated Massachusetts law?
No, no – what these people are doing is precisely what I said: arguing that Law should be tried and convicted even if he did not actually break Massachusetts law. How else do you square what they’re saying with the actualities of Massachusetts law?